The defendant/exoneree
Du Peiwu (杜培武), born in 1967; he was a police officer at the Kunming Public Security Bureau at the time of the incident.
Facts
On April 20, 1998, Du Peiwu’s wife and another police officer, Wang, were found shot dead in Wang’s vehicle. The investigating police suspected that Du’s wife and Wang were having an affair and that Du killed them for revenge.
On April 22, 1998, Du was detained and interrogated. He confessed after 70 days of interrogation.
In June 2000, after Du’s conviction, a group of gang members were arrested for a series of robberies. One of the gang members, Yang Tianyong (a police officer), confessed that he committed the crime in Du’s case. Following Yang’s instruction, the police found the handgun in the drawer of Yang’s apartment, which was linked to the shots that killed the two victims in Du’s case.
Both Du and Yang were police officers before they were convicted.
The handgun used to shoot the two victims was not found during Du’s investigation.
Procedural history
Du Peiwu was charged with intentional murder of his wife and another police officer.
On February 5, 1999, Du was originally convicted and sentenced to death by the Kunming Intermediate Court in Yunnan Province.
On October 20, 1999, the Yunnan Provincial High Court confirmed the conviction but changed the sentence to death with two years suspension.
On July 6, 2000, Du was exonerated by the Yunnan Provincial High Court because the real perpetrator Yang Tianyong came forward and was convicted.
Date of the conviction
February 5, 1999
Date the wrongful conviction was reversed
July 6, 2000
Days incarcerated
814
Why was the case reopened/reversed
On June 17, 2000, the police arrested a group of gang members who had committed serial armed robberies in Kunming City. Yang Tianyong, one of the gang members, confessed that this group also committed the crime in Du’s case and laughed at the police’s incompetence in Du’s case. Later, the police discovered the handgun which was used to shoot the two victims and a mini-recorder belonging to one of the victims was found in a drawer in Yang’s home.
Factors contributing to the wrongful conviction
False confession
The police interrogated Du Peiwu for 70 days, including periods of 10 days consecutively and 20 days consecutively. Consistent with Chinese law, lawyers were not allowed to be present during the police interrogation.
Du was severely physically and mentally tortured by the police. Du was deprived of sleep, beaten by the police using their fists and electric rods. The police officers tied Du’s hands and hung Du against a door in the air. Du claims that he confessed to stop the torture.
Problematic forensic evidence
The mud found on Du’s shoes and pants did not match the mud on the brake plate and gas plate on the vehicle.
There were two contradicting reports based on a dog sniffing test concerning whether Du had been in the vehicle where the victims were found.
Du also underwent two polygraph tests. The results did not positively show that Du was lying on major issues, but it also did not show that Du was not lying at all. The polygraph expert failed to explain the possible error and inaccuracy in the polygraph tests.
Prosecutorial errors
The procuratorate suppressed evidence that proved Du was tortured.
Defense lawyer's errors/absence
None. Du was represented by counsel and claimed his innocence.
Court's errors
Failed to credit the physical evidence (Du’s shirt which was torn during torture) Du presented at court, as well as Du’s in-court statement, that he was tortured. Refused to credit Du’s in-court exculpatory statements.
Failed to consider exculpatory witness identifications and testimonies: No eye witness identified Du as the perpetrator.
Other developments
Two police officers in Du’s case were convicted of extorting confession through torture after Du’s acquittal.
In October 2001, Du was rewarded RMB 91,141 State compensation by the Yunnan Provincial High Court.